Myths often arise from misunderstandings, oversimplifications, or a desire to maintain the status quo. They can also be intentionally created to mislead or manipulate, serving as barriers to embracing innovative practices or protecting existing power structures. Additionally, some myths may originate from well-intentioned but inaccurate assumptions or generalizations about an idea or strategy.
Many misconceptions about personalized learning have led to the formation of numerous myths. Before I tackle these, let’s first start with a realistic definition that Nicki Slaugh and I shared in our book Personalize:
Personalization is all students getting what they need when and where they need it to learn.
The definition we developed was strategic in nature. It acknowledges the fact that we all learn differently and leaves out some common words often associated with personalized learning. Let’s now dive into the most popular myths that hold educators back when it comes to personalization.
Myth 1: Technology is needed to personalize
Years ago, almost every educational technology company jumped on the personalized learning bandwagon and hailed it as a holy grail for improving outcomes. The ads and pitches contained compelling messages about how various tools would meet the needs of every learner while closing achievement gaps. Apparently, this was not the case. Having all students on technology at the same time using an adaptive learning tool where there is no discourse, collaboration, or relationship building is impersonal at best.
The “personal” in personalized is the most critical aspect. Don’t fall into the trap that you need technology to personalize. Emphasize relationships, relevance, learner preferences, feedback, and competency-based pathways, which Nicki Slaugh and I elaborate on in Personalize. At the secondary level, you can look to implement academy programs or smaller learning communities (SLCs) to create a school-within-a-school model based on constructivist learning theory and interests. No matter what you choose, the key element is the creation of personal experiences with and without technology.
Myth 2: There is one right or best way to personalize
When it comes to myths, this one irks me the most. I routinely see professional development companies championing only competency-based solutions or those where students must watch a video. Let me be clear: there is no right or best way to personalize learning. There are an array of pedagogical shifts and high-agency strategies at your disposal. Maybe you want to leverage station rotation, choice boards, playlists, self-paced courses, flipped lessons, or must-do/may-do menus. Take your pick and mix it up as it suits you.
The same can be said regarding high-agency strategies such as voice, choice, path, pace, and place. Nicki and I suggest you focus on at least one during every lesson, not all five. Personalization is all about maximizing the time you have with students. There is no “best” way, as learner preferences and needs change over time. However, there are effective strategies at your disposal. Which ones you implement and when is your call.
Myth 3: Direct instruction has no place in a personalized classroom
When it comes to high-effect strategies, direct instruction still has a great deal of impact on achievement. The key is to ensure it is chunked and doesn’t compromise most of the period or block. When this occurs, the overload of content leads to disengagement. Tier 1 instruction matters, plain and simple. Here is where student voice comes in, something I refer to as the gateway to personalization at every grade level. When implementing reviews of prior learning, checks for understanding, or closure tasks, educators can empower all students to be heard using mini whiteboards, dry-erase surfaces, Post-it notes, or technology. I am particularly a big fan of digital exit tickets that provide the teacher with instant data and feedback, which can be used the next day to reteach if needed or identify students for targeted support. Hooks can also be implemented at the beginning of the lesson for relevance.
Myth 4: Data must be used to personalize
In Personalize, Nicki and I state the value of data-enhanced teaching, not data-driven. Too much of something tends to diminish its value. While we all know data can be an invaluable tool to personalize learning, it is not a silver bullet. Learning is so much more than a number. Begin with establishing positive relationships as these are the foundation of learning, Next, focus on relevance to create a more personal connection to the concepts. Then, leverage qualitative evidence such as student work and rubrics, which can be just as effective, if not more, than data.
Myth 5: All learning is personalized
I have heard this broadcast over the years and respectfully disagree. Just ask students in a classroom where they consistently do the same thing at the same time in the same way, and I bet their responses would equate to an impersonal experience. Personalization requires a shift from the “what” to the “who” to emphasize ownership of learning. Without this, the act of learning becomes something that is mandated rather than embraced.
Myth 6: It’s more work
Changes to practice often spark the “yeah, but” response. When it comes to personalized learning, many people see it as more work. The fact of the matter is that this shift represents better work, as available time is being maximized to support struggling students while providing more challenge to those who are already at or beyond the standard. Don’t let comfort stagnate progress. The small shifts to practice implemented consistently are the epitome of personalization.
While I might have missed a few myths, the ones listed above have worked to hold back personalization from reaching its full potential in schools and, in the process, students. When it comes to learning, there is not just one way. The same can be said about how you implement personalized learning in your district, school, or classroom. I hope you will see opportunities for growth in your practice, no matter your role, to usher in experiences that support the whole child. Just because it has been done or worked in the past doesn’t mean it is the most effective approach for students today.
